Following up on the previous post, I took a look at the Baird bill (H.R. 682) to require disclosure of political intelligence firms and consultants and to require increased disclosure of lawmaker investments in stocks and futures. There is really only one major point in the registration and disclosure required for political intelligence consultants that is worth pointing out. That is the difference between who qualifies as a political intelligence consultant in Baird's bill and who qualifies as a lobbyist under the Lobbyist Disclosure Act of 1995 (LDA).

Here's the LDA:

Sec. 3 (10) LOBBYIST.—The term ”lobbyist” means any individual who is employed or retained by a client for financial or other compensation for services that include more than one lobbying contact, other than an individual whose lobbying activities constitute less than 20 percent of the time engaged in the services provided by such individual to that client over a 3-month period.

And from H.R. 682:

‘(20) POLITICAL INTELLIGENCE CONSULTANT- The term ‘political intelligence consultant’ means any individual who is employed or retained by a client for financial or other compensation for services that include one or more political intelligence contacts.’.

The major difference is the lack of a 20 percent rule in Baird's bill. Lobbyists do not have to register if they spend less than 20 percent of their time making lobbying contacts. This creates a whole class of crypto-lobbyists known formally as consultants. We've documented the poster boy for this line of work, Tom Daschle, previously.

The definition for political intelligence consultants in Baird's bill is much more to my liking than the definition of lobbyists. Maybe starting to include more peddlers of influence under the LDA will open the bill up to the further changes that myself and the rest of the Sunlight crew believe is necessary.

This week Sunlight marched up to Capitol Hill to deliver the petition signatures of more than 20,000 people who are demanding access to legislation for at least 72 hours before a new law is debated.

It's simple: legislation affects all of our lives, and it's a no-brainer that Americans be able to read and respond to a bill efore it's passed - much less a no-brainer that our representatives should read it.

People signed the petition, called their member of Congress, took a picture, tweeted, and kept it in the news.

With over 20,000 signatures and counting, it was time to make sure the main proponents of the bill we want passed - sponsor Rep. Brian Baird (WA-3)  and John Culberson (TX-7) - knew that despite recent drawbacks, people still want this simple legislation.

We gave Reps. Baird and Culberson our "Sunlight on the Hill" award to thank them for their dedication, and also presented them with a giant USB drive containing all the signatories.  We're digital folks, so a digital delivery seemed appropriate. As you an see in the video, the Representatives actually watched the names scroll through and looked into the eyes of those of you who sent in photos.

We promised there will be many thousands more to come, and we aim to deliver.

Let's get Read the Bill passed.  We shouldn't even need to be asking for this, it's so fundamental to democracy.  Please ask your friends to sign the petition and call their member of Congress.

There's just no longer an excuse for 72 hours not to be a bare minimum of what we can expect from our government.

Rep. Gary Alexander, a Republican legislator from Washington state, thinks that folks in the legislature there should actually have time to read a budget bill before voting on it. He's the sponsor of a bill, the Budget Sunshine Act, that would require a five-day waiting period before the House or Senate could vote on the operating, capital, or transportation budgets.

Alexander told the Olympian newspaper that bringing sunlight to the budget process would make the legislators more accountable to the public:

For the most part, the actual budget never sees the light of day before it is brought to the floor for a full vote. The paper is still hot, the ink is still wet and we're supposed to make a decision on the state's most important issue? My legislation would allow the public enough time to weigh in with an opinion, and it would allow lawmakers to have more confidence in what they're voting for or against. While this legislation won't necessarily help get us out of the current $6 billion budget hole, it would help us shed light on the upcoming budget proposals and the impacts of our decisions. It will help avoid a similar repeat of the problem in future years.

The Olympian editorial thinks Alexander is right and so do we—although why stop at budget bills? The Sunlight Foundation advocates that all legislation should be available for public persual at least 72 hours before consideration by Congress. In the last Congress, another lawmaker from Washington state, Democrat Rep. Brian Baird, introduced legislation that would do exactly that. In the past, Congress has voted on major bills with ride ranging effects without giving adequate time for a public airing, such as legislation granting retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies. Especially now, with the economy imploding and Congress considering bills with higher price tags than we've ever seen before, it's paramount that the process be as open as possible. Three days to read a bill--it's not that much to ask.

Rep. Brian Baird and Rules Chair Louise Slaughter reintroduced an important transparency bill that would ban lawmakers, executive branch officials, congressional staffers, and others from trading stocks, bonds, and commodities by using nonpublic information obtained in their official capacity. The legislation - Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act (H.R. 682) - also carries important transparency elements including requiring lawmakers to disclose stock transactions of $1,000 or more within 90 days and requiring "political intelligence" firms to register with the government just like lobbying firms.

With the amount of influence the legislature and the executive are currently exerting within the financial sphere it is paramount that they are not using information gleaned from closed-door meetings or information peddlers to play the market. Currently, disclosure provisions only require lawmakers and others to disclose stock, bond, and commodity trading once a year, and the system is spotty. The only way to ensure that elected and appointed officials are not using their positions to grow their wealth is to mandate regular disclosures as exist in the Baird-Slaughter bill.

For more information about "political intelligence" firms and trading on Capitol Hill see below (from the Baird press release):

Currently Members of Congress and their staff do not owe a duty of confidentiality to Congress, and therefore are not liable for insider trading.  Because of this, the temptation exists for Members and government employees to use government information only they have access to when making investment decisions.  A 2004 report from Georgia State University showed that United States Senators received investment returns that were approximately 25% higher than what typical Americans were able to achieve.

Similarly, there is currently nothing to stop Congressional staffers and executive branch employees from sharing inside information with their friends.  Armed with information not available to the general public, these people are able to make potentially lucrative investment decision that can either make them a windfall profit, or save them from a devastating loss.

Political intelligence firms have created a multi-million dollar industry to traffic this information.  Since they first showed up in the 1970s, these firms have operated in secret, and largely without government controls.  They provide investors with inside information about impending legislative action that can be used to inform investment decisions. One recent questionable example of these firms’ influence appeared in late 2005:

On November 15, 2005, the stock of a building materials company in Chicago (USG Corp) suddenly doubled, despite the fact that there was no publicly available news about the company, or industry, which explained the increase in volume. What the public didn’t know yet, but what some investors discovered through back channels and political intelligence companies, was that then-Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist had quietly decided to move forward with legislation to relieve companies, such as USG Corp, of their liabilities in asbestos related lawsuits.

This afternoon, Rep. John Culberson and I had a twitterfest (am I making up terms here?) about the need for lawmakers (minimally)  to have the time to read legislation before they have to vote on it. (Sunlight thinks if bills and amendments were actually posted online in advance of votes citizens would have an opportunity to get on the act too.

The back and forth started a day ago after Rep. Culbeson complained earlier that the Democrats were bringing up bills before anyone had a chance to read them

Here's the tweetalogue.

EllnMllr @johnculberson Support Rep Baird's H. Res 504. http://tinyurl.com/583dkr There are 13 bipartisan co-sponsors. about 3 hours ago from web in reply to johnculberson

johnculberson @EllnMllr I am also going to ask my Repub colleagues to support 72 hr rule about 2 hours ago from web in reply to EllnMllr

Johnculberson @EllnMllr Right now is a perfect example of how desperately America needs you and others through the Internet to shine sunlight on Congress about 2 hours ago from web in reply to EllnMllr

johnculberson @EllnMllr Please eblast your members your followers and let them know their Congressmen are being asked to approve $185 Bill in War spending about 2 hours ago from web in reply to EllnMllr

johnculberson @EllnMllr in a floor vote before 6pm on a 184 pg $185 b bill that was written at 2:37pm and filed publicly about the same time - outrage! about 2 hours ago from web in reply to EllnMllr

johnculberson @EllnMllr Here is where floor bills 1st appear: www.rules.house.gov/. Click on war bill: HOUSE AMENDMENT TO SENATE AMENDMENT 2 (H.R. 2642) about 2 hours ago from web in reply to EllnMllr

johnculberson @EllnMllr Now read the bottom of each page for time stamp. June 19 2:37pm means the Legis Council finished writing the bill today at 2:37pm! about 2 hours ago from web in reply to EllnMllr

johnculberson @EllnMllr Remember - no comm hearing, no amendments, no time for we the people to read it on internet or anywhere else; 1 hour debate & vote about 2 hours ago from web in reply to EllnMllr